Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Lawful Florida Gun Owner Commits Murder

A Brevard County man remained in jail late Tuesday, accused of shooting a teenager dead in an argument over loud music.Michael David Dunn,
45, and his girlfriend were in Jacksonville Friday for Dunn's son's
wedding when they stopped at a convenience store, Jacksonville sheriff's
Lt. Rob Schoonover said.Jordan Russell Davis,
17, and several other teenagers were sitting in a sport utility vehicle
in the parking lot when Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked
them to turn down their music, Schoonover said.Jordan and Dunn exchanged words, and Dunn pulled a gun and shot eight
or nine times, striking Jordan twice, Schoonover said. Jordan was
sitting in the back seat. No one else was hurt. Dunn's attorney Monday said her client acted responsibly and in self-defense. She did not elaborate.Dunn and his girlfriend took off afterward, and
witnesses jotted down their tag number, deputies said.Dunn, a gun collector, was arrested Saturday at his home in Satellite Beach on charges of murder and attempted murder. He was being held without bail.

I'm guessin' this guy was not only a lawful gun owner, but that he had a concealed carry permit. They're easy enough to pick up in Florida, why wouldn't he? Gun owners in Pennsylvania are getting them through the mail, for crying out loud. The interesting thing is no one is checking and keeping track of how many concealed carry permit holders are actually turning out to be unfit.

What's your opinion? I think he should try for the "stand your ground" defense. I mean, an older white guy arguing with a car full of black teenagers, who wouldn't feel threatened?

Criminals aren't going to take the risk of going through the system to get a carry license. They just break the law on their way to break other laws. You're worried about good people snapping, but that's rare.

I am not defending anyone. I am advising against rushing to judgement when the incident occurred only days ago and the we are just getting bits and pieces from the media. We don't know anything yet. Why do you think we SHOULD rush to judgement?

I have a non-resident permit to carry from Florida, too. You're correct in that mine was sent to me by mail, but I had to show proof of training and submit a fingerprint card for a background check before I was approved. Florida doesn't just hand them out to anyone who wants one.

Greg, do you consider that proof of training and the fingerprints a major qualifying step that would ensure quality people only get the permit? It's a joke. The requirements are tantamount to nothing. That's why the claims that concealed carry guys are safer than everybody else are wrong.

Proof of training and running a background check does show the qualification of the applicant. To exercise this one right, we go through a lot more qualification than anyone else trying to exercise any other right.

But that's not the evidence that we're not out committing crimes. The evidence is what Frail Liberty has shown you, what Texas Colt carry showed you, and what I've shown you many times in the past. You guess and whimper about how no one is checking, but that's only because you want the number of people who commit crimes while having a carry license to be much higher. The evidence is lacking for your desired narrative, so you deny the facts.

Who the fuck cares if the kid had a howitzer in his car? The NRA gunwack initiated the incident. From what it looks like, like most NRA members, he likes to shoot people, and he precipitated an incident to enable him to shoot someone. Karma may be coming for him or his.

Your chart compares CHL holders vs the general population--not CHL holders who are unfit against the population of CHL holders in general.

But, why I call you a cretin--You are unaware that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution both mention a right to life.

The Declaration says: " they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution provides in the Fifth Amendment (have you gotten beyond the Second yet?):

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one. My use of it is to show a trend which you are ignorant--that life is not to be take easily.

The doctrine of self-defence as understood by the founders held that if one exceeded the amount of force necessary to stop the threat--then one became the aggressor. Additionally, one had to use deadly force as a last resort--not a first.

Why? because life is important amongst other concepts which would go over your head.

I should add in something about the bloody code, which is how Britain dealt with crime during the colonial period. They dumped the scum in North America, until it became independent. Then, Australia became the dumping ground.

The bottom line is that if you only believe that a potential life (i.e. foetus) has a "right to life", yet are unwilling to accept that actual living beings don't, then you forsake any serious credibility.

Silly silly man. The fifth amendment is speaking directly to actors of the government in official capacity - did you not read the rest of it?

-No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

- nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

-nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

-nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Nowhere in the text of the 5th is there any inclination or mention of individual self defense or the limits of such.

That does not mean, of course, that there are not limits - they are just not spelled out in the 5th amendment - or any of the Bill of Rights.

Silly silly man. If you had any understanding of the constitution, you would know that all of the original Bill of Rights are specifically limiting the powers of the government - not the governed themselves.

Limits of the governed are covered in criminal codes. Murder, or one of it's subcategories, is generally what it is called when someone uses force in excess of what is legally allowed in a given situation; including self-defense.

So please please tell me where I have advocated that 'actual living beings' do not have a right to life? Because I don't think you will find it.

I have only said here that there is an indication that the young man who was killed may had a shotgun and that we should not rush to judgement. How does that equal 'kill em all'?

Laci is incapable of making reasoned arguments. He falls back on insults and partial quotations and what he believes to be obscure references. He's good for a laugh at his pomposity, but for nothing else.

Frail Liberty, use your head, man. There's nothing to suggest that concealed carry guys would be THAT much safer than the general pop. If the numbers were 300 to 320 you might have an argument that makes sense. Open your eyes.

I am not suggesting it. I am showing you numbers that PROVE it. There is no room interpretation here. These are actual conviction rates. Denying these numbers is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your eyes singing "lalalalalala".

I suggested a possible explanation for your truly incredible "proof." The reporting is poorly done. In many cases, no one is asking the criminal if he happens to have a CCW permit. Who gives a shit when someone is caught doing a violent crime. They have other priorities at that point. And all you guys who take advantage of that low percentage are fine with it.

Does "13 times less likely" sound possible to you? What could possible explain it? The requirements for qualifying are next to nothing. Why would they be THAT much better behaved?

Mikeb, do you have any evidence that a records search isn't standard procedure? I would imagine that cops look for outstanding warrants, check for criminal records, and so forth. The carry license data is available to the police. In many states, it's tied in to DMV records. Just because news agencies don't check doesn't mean that law enforcement isn't looking. You're making this up because you need it to be true.

These are conviction numbers. There is a ton of paperwork that goes into play before someone is convicted of crime. There might be some small (insignificant) degree of error in paperwork - but there is no way the CHL status is not recorded. These numbers are not wrong.

As far as explaining it - it's what we have been saying all along. Getting a CHL in most states like Texas is a process; paying fees for the class and fees for the licence, 10 hour class, background check, waiting at least a month after application. This is not something that the criminally inclined tend to do. It's just not.

By and large, people who take the time to go through the process tend to be law abiding. They are not the gun-happy hotheads you imagine them to be. They just want the option to protect themselves and their family.

It is a very intentional process and most of us go through a period of introspection before we ever start it. We ask ourselves questions: Do I want this responsibility? Would I be able to pull the trigger if I needed to? How can I carry safely given my job, or my kids, my active lifestyle?

Then, going through the process introduces you to more of the gun culture. The class stresses deescalation. You form groups with people on the same journey and learn more about safe handling, good holsters, concealed clothing, safer ammo (including hollow-points). The further you go, the more learn, the safer (and more law abiding) you become.

Are there exceptions? Of course there are. About 25 out of 100,000 in Texas. But those are the exceptions. The numbers bear it out and really cannot be denied.

This is actually one area where I separate from many in the gun-culture. I like licensing for public carry. I like the intentionality it forces. (I like it for other reasons too which I won't go into here.)

I'm not convinced. The classes and training requirements, which are more in Texas than in most places, are less than you guys do already. You make it sound like more than it is. It's next to nothing.

Concealed carry permit holders, just like other gun owners, and just like everybody else, suffer from all kinds of problems. You know my contention in the Famous 10%. And you also know that I low-balled it. You guys have your fair share of rageaholics, drug and alcohol problems, and the stereotypical irresponsible gun nuts. There's no way that those "stringent" requirements to get the permit have filtered out the problem guys to the point of being 13 times safer. No way.

That's where you misunderstand. I am not saying that a certain part of the process filters out the 'unfit' because they are somehow flagged in the background check or can't hit the target or another part of the process. It's not rigorous because the milestones are difficult causing people to flunk out.

I am saying the intentionality of the entire process self-filters people. Each step is not hard, but the process is costly and time consuming. Those who commit the time and resources to get through it tend to be law-abiding. It is a key distinction.

Even if you don't believe it, you have not been able to give a reasonable explanation to explain the disparity. Again, you are essentially sticking you head in the sand unless you can come up with a plausible explanation for these numbers.

I've given a reasonable explanation. The reporting is faulty. Why do you find that so difficult to accept. What all of a sudden you believe the government agencies involved in producing those statistics are completely on the ball? Are they so different from the ATF or the IRS?

Plus, I don't think it's accurate to say it's time comsuming and expensive. It's not. In some states it's literally nothing.

And don't forget my other argument that many so-called DGUs are false. When you add that possibility into the mix, you're incredibly low percentage isn't so low anymore.

Nope Mr. Real American was standing his ground against the auditory attack by one of those. As such I expect him to be freed after all everyone knows you fire 8-9 warning shots which can never be considered deadly force. Q.E.D.

"And now it looks like we have some more information and, as usual, you might be a little quick to throw the M word around. It looks like the innocent victim may have had a shotgun:"

Really? You're going with that?

Lemme see what the locals have to say about it.

Oh, yeah, here it is.

"The attorney for Michael David Dunn, charged in the shooting death of Jordan Russell Davis, has a dramatically different story to tell about what happened Friday night at the Gate store on Southside Boulevard.

Robin Lemonidis of Melbourne said Tuesday night that someone in the red sport-utility vehicle that was next to her client’s car pulled a shotgun on him and that he fired in self defense.

“He acted the way any responsible firearms owner would act in a similar situation because a shotgun was aimed at him,” she said.

Jacksonville police said no weapon was found in the car.

“How hard did they look,” Lemonidis said. “Have they done an entire search?”

Lemonidis, who will be in Jacksonville Wednesday when her client makes his first appearance in a Jacksonville courtroom, said Dunn is “devastated that anyone was harmed in this instance.”"

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-28/story/attorney-suspect-teens-death-says-client-saw-shotgun-shot-self-defense#ixzz2DYUahv6N"

So, lets see if we can go down the legitimate DGU checklist here.

"Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked them to turn down their music, Schoonover said." So, he "requests" that teens in SUV, parked in convenience store parking lot (not on his property, nor on property under his control) turn down their too loud music, instead of simply parking in ANOTHER PARKING SPOT. Check.

"Jordan and Dunn exchanged words," about what we won't know until there is a trial (and even then we may not know) and the other black-o-perp teens in the SUV at the time of the shooting give their obviously slanted version of the event. Dunn does not like what he heas and HE HAZ TEH GUNZ!! Check.

Dunn fires most of MAGAZINE (not a clip, there is no such thing as a "clip" in a gun as weapons expert Greg Camp will be quick to point out) into a vehicle that has several people in it. Has no fucking idea if the other people in the car are there of their own free will, being held hostage or whatever else might be going on. Check.

Takes off with his girlfriend after his mano-a-mano confrontation with a shotgun wielding black-o-perp teenager (alleged, by his lawyer). DOES NOT CALL police to report shooting incident (even though, I'm pretty sure that Florida, despite having horrendoously lax gunzlawz requires that shooting incidents be, like, FUCKING REPORTED TO THE POLICE). Check.

Gosh, that sounds like a totally good DGU. Lots better than that idiot up in Little Falls, MN who shot the kids in the face after incapacitating them. Yeah.

So, I think I predicted somewhere (prolly at my own blog) that the difference between the incident in MN and other DGU's that result in people getting killed has a whole lot to do with things like witnesses and such. Both shooters, Dunn and the Little Falls murderer are stone assholes and should be put in prison for a good long time--and never, ever hold a firearm in their hands again.

Yeah, Greg, there are SOME people that I think the gummint should make damn sure don't have firearms.

"So, Laci, do you believe that a human fetus has a right to life?"

Well, gosh, dummy, no. When a fetus becomes a person, under the law then they'll have the same right to life as any other person.

Oh goodness, don't you know by muddying the watters, Black Teen had a shotgun, it exonerates Mr. Gun Collector on the Stand Your Ground statue. But, listen to the rest of his BS defense. Dunn goes over to confront the teens about their loud music, but somehow hears threats coming from inside the car, and sees the never found shotgun. So he leaves and comes back with his own gun and fires 8-9 "warning shots" and then absconds to a hotel to have post murder coitus.

The sad thing is Faux News and the right-wing blog-o-sphere will fight tooth and nail to get him exonerated.

Going with what? Cautioning against rushing to judgement? You bet. It is always good advise anyway - but especially when talking about an incident that occurred 4 days ago with little spurts of information just now coming out.

So yeah, I am not going to call the guy murderer yet. Neither will I call the teenagers a bunch of thugs. Again, I wasn't there and it is WAY too early figure out the truth.

But since you seem to struggle with the subtleties of written English - let me be clear: I am not saying this was a DGU. I'm just saying I don't know and neither do you or Mike. So calling this guy a murderer is premature.

"Laci is incapable of making reasoned arguments. He falls back on insults and partial quotations and what he believes to be obscure references. He's good for a laugh at his pomposity, but for nothing else.

Projection, thy name is Greg Camp.

Wow. Laci is incapable of making reasoned arguments? You teach young people? That is truly fucking sad.

Democommie, it's clear that you haven't learned the rules of reasoning and you've fallen victim to Laci and Dog Gone in their notion of what that is. Just like your comments, if Laci's were stripped of curses, insults, and rage, there'd be little left.

"I have only said here that there is an indication that the young man who was killed may had a shotgun and that we should not rush to judgement. How does that equal 'kill em all'?"

Yeah, you said it, the killer's attorney said it. The cops said there was no weapon found. Do you idiots seriously think that an SUV occupied by darkskinned teens in South Florida is not going to be THOROUGHLY SEARCHED? I mean really, now stupid are you people? Never mind that was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

democommie said: "Wow. Laci is incapable of making reasoned arguments?"

Did you read through his rant to me? Did that sound rational to you? The fifth amendment has nothing to do with non-state murder and he accused me of not valuing life - a trait I have not exhibited. I gotta stand by Greg on this one.

democommie said: "The cops said there was no weapon found. Do you idiots seriously think that an SUV occupied by darkskinned teens in South Florida is not going to be THOROUGHLY SEARCHED? I mean really, now stupid are you people?"

Again, I don't know what happened there. But IF they did have a shotgun, [do you idiots seriously think that] those darkskinned teens wouldn't be smart enough to ditch a shotgun before the police arrive on scene?

Yes. How many times have we heard Japete say "all you have to do is say you felt threatened"? We have consistently said from the beginning that the evidence has to support that claim. The police wouldn't be allowed to make an arrest under her interpretation. And this the the exact scenario that she, and so many others of you (I am looking dog gone's way), have used to spread gross misrepresentations of what the law protects. Guy gets mad, pulls out gun, blows away black kid in a hoodie, claims he "felt threatened", gets away scot free on Stabd Your Ground law. Is that not the exact narrative we have heard countless times over the last year? For all we know this guy read that crap and believed it.

"Did you read through his rant to me? Did that sound rational to you? The fifth amendment has nothing to do with non-state murder and he accused me of not valuing life - a trait I have not exhibited. I gotta stand by Greg on this one."

Of course you have to stand by Greg, a guy who lies through his teeth at the drop of his silly hobbit hat.

"Charged with murder? Once again, this blows a hole in the anti-gun propaganda purported about Stand Your Ground laws."

Charged with murder because it happened in a public place, in front of witnesses--and he didn't kill everyone there. It actually sort of blows a hole in the Gunzloonznation notion that people should be able to carry and use weapons JUST CUZ THEY WANTZ TO. Wow, what a polite society.

Frail Liberty (maybe the avatar should be a turkey, instead of an eagle. Turkeys have been much more successful in the wild than their proud, easily shot while on the nest or perching in a tree, cousin) has brought up, the "Well, we don't know what happened and the OTHER guy may have had a shotguy.".

Okay, so, it's good for the paunchy white guy to throw down on a carload of people because they were mean to him--or, much worse, disrespectful--blasting away indiscriminately. Otoh, if those black-o-perp teens HAD a gun--that would be wrong. Ummm, care to show me the chain of logic on that sort of thinking. It seems that Dunn was the "aggressor" who sought confrontation. By your standards the kid, if he had a gun, should have just blasted Dunn to hell and told the cops he felt "threatened". Or, do you maybe have two different standards to apply in these cases?

No, I gotta stand by what was an accurate description of what Laci posted - a non-rational rant containing unfounded accusations. If you pay attention at all, I have called Greg on the carpet in the past and supported Mike on occasion when I disagreed with the argument Greg was making. So sorry to burst you gunloonz bubble, but I call it like I see it - every time.

"It seems that Dunn was the "aggressor" who sought confrontation. "

There you go making judgments again based on early media reports. I try not to form hard opinions until after all the data is on the table. Call me crazy.

"It actually sort of blows a hole in the Gunzloonznation notion that people should be able to carry and use weapons JUST CUZ THEY WANTZ TO. Wow, what a polite society."

Even if he was the aggressor and is guilty of murder (and he very well may be - we will know with more time) - it doesn't blow holes in anything, silly.

"Okay, so, it's good for the paunchy white guy to throw down on a carload of people because they were mean to him--or, much worse, disrespectful--blasting away indiscriminately. Otoh, if those black-o-perp teens HAD a gun--that would be wrong. Ummm, care to show me the chain of logic on that sort of thinking. It seems that Dunn was the "aggressor" who sought confrontation. By your standards the kid, if he had a gun, should have just blasted Dunn to hell and told the cops he felt "threatened". Or, do you maybe have two different standards to apply in these cases?"

Sorry, I missed one of your incoherent rants.

There are no different standards here. Just like the GZ/TM incident, it all depends upon who was being the aggressor. In this case, if it was Dunn, than he committed murder. The only thing wrong with the 'black-o-perp teen' (as you like to call them) having the gun in that case would be if Florida has an age restriction.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you won't tend to find different standards coming from me. It's all about the facts. I just advise waiting until we actually have them before slamming the gavel down - that's all. Call me silly.

Just think; if this had been one of the hundreds of posts that you've put up in which the shooting was an accident, you would be lucky to get more than one comment (if that). Just for shits and grins, it would have been interesting to see what sort of response you'd have gotten if the OP was something like.

"Teen-ager shot by man, accidentally, while man is showing handgun to teeen.".

My guess? it would be ignored. But this here post is like a big ol' red,white and blue bullseye for teh gunzloonz. They can't resist its pull.

Frailbrained Libertyguy:

This study:

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf

was written by this fella

http://www.mideng.com/people/WILLIAM_E.htm

, yes?

Self-published from the looks of it. No peer review. Not accepted, afaia, by any gummint agency. IOW, John Lott's specialty. A lot of hand waving and number crunching with no indication that it has wider acceptance than amongst those who are ALREADY convinced of their lack of bias and moral rectitude. I like this one, in particular that shows his "study" on the same page as two by John Lott who is a notorious liar--well, we are known, to some extent, by the company we keep.

If there are some links that don't show up when his name or the study are googled--links which track to someone whose primary (only?) degree is in chemical engineering, let us know.

In the meantime, if I had to describe your efforts thus far in this area, the word, "FAIL" comes immediately to mind.

I am Soooooooooooooooooooo sorry. It appears that I've mistaken your silly hat for Gandalf's. I think the mistake is probably a natural one as both of you pull shit out of thin air to make your story work.

Actually, now that I think about it your hat looks more like one of these guys:

http://www.barnorama.com/animals-wearing-hats/

the difference being that they were forced to wear those silly looking chapeaus.

"This study: http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf was written by this fella http://www.mideng.com/people/WILLIAM_E.htm"

Wow, you are a truly silly. Don't just call the author into question, tell me what is wrong with the data gathering or conclusions.

There is no extrapolation taking place. No surveys. The data is not a subjective determination like "Was an incident a legitimate defensive gun use?" "Was it racially motivated?" "Was a life or property protected?" There are no variables to account for.

No, this is quantifiable data regarding the existence of a valid CHL holder for Texas citizens convicted of crime.

We can argue all day about what the study may or may not indicate. But the 'study' is merely a simple compilation of data. Unless you have doubts about the honesty of the Texas DPS, you have no leg to stand on to question the data itself.

Again (I seem to have to repeat myself for you), you can argue what it means - but the numbers are solid.

And because it is a simple compilation of existing data, it can and has been been easily repeated. Here is one that was pretty easy to find:http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975&hilit=conviction+rate

So please, tell me how the data doesn't mean what it seems to mean. Here is an example of doing just that:http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-fallacy-of-criminals-get-guns-from.html

I didn't doubt the data in the silly study Laci offered up. I merely showed how the data does not support the argument that Laci thinks it supports. The study offers no proof of a lack of protective benefits from citizens carrying guns.

Just think; if this had been one of the hundreds of posts that you've put up in which the shooting was an accident, you would be lucky to get more than one comment (if that). Just for shits and grins, it would have been interesting to see what sort of response you'd have gotten if the OP was something like.

"Teen-ager shot by man, accidentally, while man is showing handgun to teeen.".

My guess? it would be ignored. But this here post is like a big ol' red,white and blue bullseye for teh gunzloonz. They can't resist its pull.

---

And that is a silly mis-observation also.

1. We never doubt that gun accidents occur. Just that they are rare and best prevented via education than legislation.

2. This post is long because of side discussions having little to do with the original topic.